We performed a comparison between Grafana and ITRS Geneos based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Grafana boasts customizable and visually appealing graphs, flexible integration with other tools, and the ability to cater to multiple use cases. Meanwhile, ITRS Geneos, while highly customizable and flexible, requires a lot of manual work for creating dashboards and lacks a mobile app. It also has a complex initial setup process and may be too expensive for non-banking and non-finance industries. Overall, Grafana is more user-friendly and cost-effective, with a wider range of features and better community support, making it the preferred solution.
"Great capacity planning and the solution has a great GUI."
"The most valuable thing was that it had a good visualization tool."
"The dashboards are the most valuable features."
"The initial setup is straightforward with just a few clicks on the solution's cloud."
"The installation process is easy. We have deployed it on the cloud. I have around 20 to 30 people using the solution in my company."
"There are multiple kinds of models there to create dashboards, which is quite useful."
"The most important feature of Grafana is its alarm formatting capability."
"The product's initial setup phase was very easy."
"Real-time log monitoring with desktop alerts is valuable as it tells us immediately when there is an issue."
"This tool allows one to analyse, integrate and customize as per the systems and allows you to set your own rules."
"One of the most valuable features of ITRS Geneos is the active time feature that helps with the trading applications that I support."
"The Netprobe is so lightweight compared to the agents that most monitoring tools use. It's really superior to the competition. The agent that is used by almost every competitive tool takes a lot more system resources. It's slower and it requires a greater effort and more compromises in terms of security to install on the monitored servers. With Geneos, because it lives outside the code, it is far easier and far less taxing on the monitored systems."
"The ability to completely tailor and customize what it's monitoring is one of its strongest points. A lot of other monitoring tools are good at certain things, but one of my colleagues described it as the “Swiss Army Knife” of monitoring tools. It can do anything you want."
"The NetProbe carries over 100 samplers which are capable of monitoring hardware, OS, and the application layer."
"In my experience, being able to monitor our databases is a valuable feature as we can create our own queries and aren't reliant on the in-built ones."
"I always appreciate Geneos's stability and ease of use."
"The solution has room for improvement with a better API to help automate the construction of the dashboards easier."
"If there was an issue on one node, we couldn't drill down and see all the issues on other nodes."
"Grafana need to improve the logging functionality."
"The service dashboard is very hard and needs improvement."
"More dashboard is required, out-of-the-box, for OpenNMS."
"Setting up alerts via Grafana is a bit complicated, and alerting needs to improve."
"The look and feel of the charting and graph capabilities in Grafana could improve. If they provided a storyboard type of feature as they have in other solutions, such as PowerBI. The multi-tenanted and stitch metrics features could improve."
"There is room for improvement when using multiple dashboards because they can become complicated to keep track of and use."
"Mobile phone integration is probably not as rich as it could be."
"The dashboard feature is full of bugs. Grouping items results in a distorted dashboard."
"Geneos' application monitoring could be improved a lot. Products like AppDynamics and Dynatrace provide the process thread-level monitoring, but Geneos lacks these capabilities."
"It needs to be easier to configure, especially with the JMX plugins."
"Much of the reporting outside of the user interface is very basic and requires much customization to be useful."
"I would like to see ITRS integrate its setup editor with a SVN to check-in setup XML after major changes."
"For the last year or two, I've been asking the vendor about the mobile app. This is something that probably everyone asks when they see the tool and they see how powerful it is. If there is any mobile app for this or if there is any way this tool can be more easily accessible other than having a big client installed, it would be great. I know you can build dashboards, et cetera, but there is no quick and easy way. I should be able to download an app, log in, and see my status. That will put this product above everything else out there. I believe it's on their roadmap."
"There is a part of the rules for monitoring alerts. I want to understand more about how to choose the samples and the requirements for the rules. That is the part that I want to understand better and get better training for."
Grafana is ranked 6th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 39 reviews while ITRS Geneos is ranked 11th in Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability with 57 reviews. Grafana is rated 8.0, while ITRS Geneos is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Grafana writes "Agent-free with great dashboards and an active community". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ITRS Geneos writes "The flexible dashboard sets it apart from competing tools, but it's costly and lacks scalability". Grafana is most compared with New Relic, Azure Monitor, Sentry, Dynatrace and Coralogix, whereas ITRS Geneos is most compared with Dynatrace, AppDynamics, Prometheus, Datadog and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Grafana vs. ITRS Geneos report.
See our list of best Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability vendors.
We monitor all Application Performance Monitoring (APM) and Observability reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.